This thread has the rules in the first post, so I think this is the appropriate place to say this.

The last two games had a member of the mafia give away their full RPM, without redacting their teammates. Can we make it a rule that players can't do that or, if they do, the people involved PM the GM and work it out with them before telling anyone else? I don't think the people who did send their full RPM did it maliciously, but we should have something in place to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. Both Eff and Cyberknight had to make some significant game changes after the evil teams were revealed, and while I think they both did an excellent job re-balancing, it's better that such situations don't happen in the first place.

And there's certainly a place for betraying your mafia team. Some roles are designed to be backstabbers, and the possibility of a convert always changes matters. A confirmed mafia member could plant a list with some mafia members and some good members on it. But I think that, for now, we should just limit this.

TL;DR: Mafia members shouldn't give away the identity of their teammates; if they do, the players involved should work it out with the GM.

This thread has the rules in the first post, so I think this is the appropriate place to say this.

The last two games had a member of the mafia give away their full RPM, without redacting their teammates. Can we make it a rule that players can't do that or, if they do, the people involved PM the GM and work it out with them before telling anyone else? I don't think the people who did send their full RPM did it maliciously, but we should have something in place to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. Both Eff and Cyberknight had to make some significant game changes after the evil teams were revealed, and while I think they both did an excellent job re-balancing, it's better that such situations don't happen in the first place.

And there's certainly a place for betraying your mafia team. Some roles are designed to be backstabbers, and the possibility of a convert always changes matters. A confirmed mafia member could plant a list with some mafia members and some good members on it. But I think that, for now, we should just limit this.

TL;DR: Mafia members shouldn't give away the identity of their teammates; if they do, the players involved should work it out with the GM.

Both situations were based on mistakes, not based on intent to break a game, and I think both players have now learned better. That said, I think that, as has been said before in this thread, the fewer official rules, the better. As you've said, somebody could plant a fake list.I think the important thing here is that we urge caution and strategy, more than that there be a specific rule put in place.

Given how much work goes into even simple mafia games, I guarantee you that no GM wants their game to be broken by anything, especially mafia giving away their entire team. It's incredibly frustrating.

I think it's a good idea, but it still leaves open the possibility of stuff like "I know X is evil. I can't tell you how I know, but... trust me. I know." The only way to completely remove the possibility of good getting ahold of an unedited evil RPM is to ban RPM trades completely... and it looks like games are already beginning to shift that way. I don't love the idea and would prefer if it weren't implemented, but it's something for GMs to keep in mind.

Last year, there was a similar discussion in this thread. (One page back.) It questioned whether no-share agreements should be enforced by the GM, or if it should remain an unspoken rule.The consensus was that different people have different strategies, and the other players need to adapt. That is to say, if someone breaks a no-share deal, the GM won't enforce anything in particular, but the knowledge that this player broke a deal will follow them from game to game. You learn as you play which players are willing to break deals, lie about RPMs, etc. My personal playstyle allows me to make heavy implications and bend the truth, but not to tell an outright lie.It was brought up that there were two players (whom I haven't personally come into contact with, but have heard about) who would put loyalty to eachother over loyalty to team. What that meant is that people learned not to trust them.

I haven't been on this particular site for too long, but I've played mafia on a few other sites, and based on that and what I've seen from past discussions in this thread, it looks like mafia goes through waves. Sometimes the concern is about one thing, sometimes about another, but there's always something that can break the game. It's something that I've seen about life in general, not just mafia games, that something can always go wrong. You can always set more rules and restrictions, but nothing is ever foolproof.

I think that the way to stop games from breaking is simply to teach players about things that don't work, and to let them get their experience. Like I said in my last post, both players seem to have learned their lessons. For that matter, both of them made mistakes, so a rule against it may not have even changed anything, because they didn't realize what they were doing. There will always be something that can break the game, unless we go directly to the source, which is the players.

I understand that people make mistakes and can learn from their mistakes. That's fine, and that's what mistakes are for.

But this is a mistake that pretty much ruins the game, barring significant GM interference. Sure, it's impossible to prevent people from making mistakes, but the effects can be mitigated. I was co-running a game where this happened (under different circumstances - someone trusted someone they shouldn't have), and my efforts to rebalance the game ended up ruining the fun for several players. If we had a rule where, say, a player who receives an unredacted mafia RPM talks to the GM before doing anything based on that information, the situations in both previous games would have required fewer GM headaches.

Maybe we should run a couple newbie games? Most of the games on HSD are complicated; every person has some power, there's a theme going on, we often have converts or some interesting mechanic. It might be a good idea to run something with a proven open setup (eg Alternating 9P, Bird 7P, or JK9) that's much much simpler to run and put together than one of the more complicated games. Because less effort goes into these games, mistakes aren't as bad as they are in the more complicated games. They're easier to play and help develop a firmer grasp on general mafia strategy. And, because they're smaller and shorter, we could probably run two at once. Idk.

That may work. What if there's, say, a mafia training game that runs alongside the full game? And let's say that before somebody is allowed to play in a full game, they must have participated in at least 2-3 mafia games before. Any new players would then go to the training games (and players qualified for full games could also play in training games to fill up the extra slots).

We have had issues in the past of players that know each other in real life taking advantage of that to manipulate games. Does anyone have any quick fixes for that?

_________________Caleb

Hammy wrote:

Also, Cashley died in a hole. I don't know why you keep trusting him. I mean sure he's super good at mafia and knows exactly what he's doing, but I feel like maybe some game you would just not trust him. Props to you Cashley, always making my games exciting.

We have had issues in the past of players that know each other in real life taking advantage of that to manipulate games. Does anyone have any quick fixes for that?

Every case that I've witnessed of this came from a simple lack of understanding of the general rules of mafia and not malicious intent. It would be helpful to have constant reminders of this here and for Game Markers to include it in the rules for their specific games.

_________________-JoshuaThe dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debateProud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor

That may work. What if there's, say, a mafia training game that runs alongside the full game? And let's say that before somebody is allowed to play in a full game, they must have participated in at least 2-3 mafia games before. Any new players would then go to the training games (and players qualified for full games could also play in training games to fill up the extra slots).

I like this idea. Although I think that I'd participate in one or two whether I had to or not, because as people have seen from the last game, I'm not that good. Would everyone be allowed to participate? And would some people who make game-breaking mistakes(like me) have to go back to there for a game?

I have never tried to manipulate games through that, but if people think it's unfair, I'll stop. It doesn't really matter to me.

Ehh you are not really the issue. There was one game a while back where this became a real issue and never got addressed.

In general, you shouldn't trust or believe a player because you know them in real life and you especially shouldn't give them info they shouldn't have.

_________________Caleb

Hammy wrote:

Also, Cashley died in a hole. I don't know why you keep trusting him. I mean sure he's super good at mafia and knows exactly what he's doing, but I feel like maybe some game you would just not trust him. Props to you Cashley, always making my games exciting.

I still don't know if I should go to classic mafia once it starts, because in my third game, I made a game-breaking mistake. Should people have to go back there if they're still new and make game-breaking mistakes? Also, I might wanna do a round of that even if I don't have to, would that be allowed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum